[PATCH 2 of 2] SSL: let it build against BoringSSL

[Piotr Sikora]

Hey Maxim,

> The problem is lots of added lines required to avoid calling it.

And why exactly is that a problem?

> If expected further API changes in BoringSSL/LibreSSL is a
> concern, we may want to wait longer before the API settles a bit.
> I believe I've already suggested this during previous discussion
> about LibreSSL.

LibreSSL already shipped their initial release and BoringSSL won't
have stable API nor formal releases, so there is no point in delaying
that in my opinion.

> Even if it works, it would be non-trivial to support code with
> such #if's.  We may want to add some additional level of
> abstraction here.  Not sure if it worth the effort in this
> particular case though.

Yeah, this particular case looks a bit odd, but it's the best I can
think of without introducing too much complexity.

Best regards,
Piotr Sikora